Efeito de diferentes tempos de alongamento na flexibilidade da musculatura posterior da coxa

Muscle stretching is one of the most used techniques for increasing range of movement (ROM), but there is no consensus on how long it must last to increase flexibility. The aim of this study was to determine which stretching duration is most effective. Flexibility was assessed by measuring the popliteal angle (PA). Thirty mean age 21.1±2.9 year-old female volunteers were recruited and randomly divided into five groups (control, 15, 60, 90, and 120 seconds). All underwent a four-week passive stretching program at these different stretching lengths. Each was assessed as to flexibility by three clinical examiners who measured the PA. Data were statistically analysed, with significance level set at pO alongamento é uma das técnicas mais utilizadas para se obter aumento da amplitude de movimento (ADM), porém não há consenso sobre o tempo necessário de alongamento para aumentar a flexibilidade. O objetivo do estudo foi verificar qual tempo de duração de alongamento é mais eficaz, avaliando-se a flexibilidade pela mensuração do ângulo poplíteo (AP). Foram recrutadas 30 voluntárias com idade média de 21,1±2,9 anos, divididas aleatoriamente em cinco grupos (controle, 15, 60, 90 e 120 segundos), e submetidas a quatro semanas de alongamento passivo durante diferentes tempos, sendo avaliadas por três examinadores clínicos pelo teste do AP associado à ADM. Os dados foram submetidos a análise estatística, com nível de significância

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries